Cammermeyer v. Aspin

The court found that the government's stated purpose, to "maintain the readiness and combat effectiveness of its armed forces," was indeed a legitimate one. It did not, however, agree that discharging Cammermeyer was rationally related to this goal. Dismissing the government's claim that homosexuality is "incompati[ble] with military service and interfere[s] with military mission," Zilly noted that in "Canada, Australia, France, Israel, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Japan," homosexuals serve without incident. He also cited several studies commissioned by the U.S. government that found "the presence of homosexuals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems in the functioning of military units."

The court was likewise persuaded by evidence refuting the government's claims that homosexual service would damage discipline, good order, and morale; unit cohesion; heterosexual privacy; and its ability to recruit and retain military personnel. After dismissing these arguments, Zilly turned to polling results indicating that "40 to 79 percent of the public favors allowing homosexuals to serve in the military." However, Zilly wrote, "to the extent public disapproval of homosexual service in the military is based on prejudice, such disapproval would not be a legitimate basis for the government's policy."

Finally, Zilly cited Cammermeyer herself as the strongest argument against the government's contention that homosexuality was not compatible with military service:

Certainly, the undisputed evidence in this case relating to Colonel Cammermeyer's service strongly supports the conclusion that acknowledged homosexuality is not incompatible with military service. Cammermeyer served in the Army and the Washington State National Guard with distinction. She was a highly trained, decorated and dedicated officer in the military . . . After she disclosed her lesbian status in April 1989, she continued to perform her military duties for over three years until her discharge. Her final evaluation, dated July 31, 1992 . . . described her as having continued to serve the Washington Army National Guard "with dedicated professionalism." It is ironic that after over three years as an acknowledged homosexual servicemember, Cammermeyer was evaluated as having "the potential to assume responsibility at NGB level as Chief Nurse," yet she was discharged because of the alleged incompatibility of her sexual orientation with military service.

The court set aside Cammermeyer's claim that the "Constitution confers a fundamental right of privacy upon a person to be a homosexual," saying that it did not need to decide this question in order to resolve her claim. "The court," Zilly wrote, "has already held that the Army regulation challenged here is based solely on prejudice. As such, it cannot withstand even rational basis review. Regulations based solely on prejudice are irrational as a matter of law and serve no legitimate governmental purpose."

The district court ordered that Cammermeyer be reinstated to her former position with all the rights, honors, and privileges accorded an officer of her rank. That order has been stayed pending the government's appeal, and Cammermeyer currently works in a civilian position at a veterans' hospital.